I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 18/03/2016. I note you seek
access to the following information:

" Please provide:

a) the revisions of the Met Detention Equality Impact Assessment (EIA)
since Met Detention started operating, and

b) the feedback received following each review of these documents."

Your request will now be considered in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the Act). You will receive a response within the
statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act.

If you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please contact
us at [email address] or on the phone at 0207 161 3500, quoting the
reference number above. Should your enquiry relate to the logging or
allocations process we will be able to assist you directly and where your
enquiry relates to other matters (such as the status of the request) we
will be able to pass on a message and/or advise you of the relevant
contact details.

Yours sincerely

R. Loizou
Support Officer - Freedom of Information Triage Team

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.

The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.ico.org.uk. Alternatively, write to or
phone:

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system. To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law. Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents. The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 18/03/2016. I note you seek
access to the following information:

Please provide: a) the revisions of the Met Detention Equality Impact
Assessment (EIA) since Met Detention started operating, and b) the
feedback received following each review of these documents.

I am sorry to inform you that we have not been able to complete our
response to your request by the date originally stated. Enquiries are
still being made in relation to the second part of your request.

I can now advise you that the amended date for a response is 19/05/2016
although it is hoped to provide you with a response within the next few
days.

May I apologise for any inconvenience caused.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please email
at [email address], quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Yvette Taylor
Information Manager

LEGAL ANNEX

Section 17(2) provides:

(2) Where-

a) in relation to any request for information, a public authority is, as
respects any information, relying on a claim-
i) that any provision of Part II which relates to the duty to confirm or
deny and is not specified in section 2(3) is relevant to the request, or
ii) that the information is exempt information only by virtue of a
provision not specified in section 2(3), and
b) at the time when the notice under subsection (1) is given to the
applicant, the public authority (or, in a case falling within section
66(3) or (4), the responsible authority) has not yet reached a decision as
to the application of subsection (1)(b) or (2)(b) of section 2,
the notice under subsection (1) must indicate that no decision as to the
application of that provision has yet been reached and must contain an
estimate of the date by which the authority expects that such a decision
will have been reached.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.

The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.ico.org.uk. Alternatively, write to or
phone:

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system. To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law. Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents. The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 18/03/2016. I note you seek
access to the following information:

* Please provide: a) the revisions of the Met Detention Equality Impact
Assessment (EIA) since Met Detention started operating, and b) the
feedback received following each review of these documents. .

SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
within the MPS. The searches located information relevant to your
request.

DECISION
I have today decided to disclose some of the requested information. Some
data has been withheld as it is exempt from disclosure and therefore this
response serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the Act). Please see the legal annex for further
information on the exemptions applied in respect of your request.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Having located and considered the relevant information, I am afraid that I
am not required by statute to release this information in full.

This email serves as a Partial Refusal Notice under Section 17(1)(a)(b)(c)
of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).

This information has therefore been exempted pursuant to the provisions of
Section 40(2)(3) of the Act.

Section 40(2)(a)(b)(3)(a)(i)(ii)(b) is an absolute exemption and requires
neither an evidence of harm or public interest test in justification of
its use.

Under Section 40(2) and (3) of the Act, Public Authorities are able to
withhold information where its release would identify any living
individual and breach the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998
(DPA).

I have applied this exemption in that the disclosure of the names of MPS
staff below the rank of Chief Inspector or police staff equivalent could
cause a person's identity to be revealed. If this occurs due to the
information provided by the MPS, this constitutes personal data, which
would be in breach of the rights provided by the DPA.

The eight principles of the DPA govern the way in which data controllers
must manage personal data. Under principle one of the DPA, personal data
must be processed fairly and lawfully. I consider that the release of
information related to terminated contracts, due to the low numbers
returned, constitutes personal data. The release of this information would
be unfair to the individuals concerned as they would have no reasonable
expectation that the MPS would make this information publicly available.

In reaching my decision I have in each case, given due regard to Condition
one and six of Schedule 2 of the DPA.
Condition one of the DPA requires that consideration is given to whether
consent for disclosure has been given whilst Condition six requires that
consideration is given to whether disclosure would constitute legitimate
processing of that data.
Having considered both conditions, I have established that no consent is
present or would likely be received to release this information.

This exemption is both absolute and class based. When this exemption is
applied, it is accepted that harm would result from disclosure. There is
accordingly no requirement to consider whether release of information is
in the public interest or demonstrate what harm would result from
disclosure.

DISCLOSURE

Met Detention came into operation on 26th January 2015. Please find below
a copy of the original Met Detention Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) and
the current EIA.

With respect to the second part of your request, reasonable searches have
been made and as at today's date no information relevant to your request
has been located.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please email
at [email address], quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Yvette Taylor
Information Manager
COMPLAINT RIGHTS
Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?
You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.
Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.
Complaint
If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.
Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:
FOI Complaint
Information Rights Unit
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]
In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
The Information Commissioner
After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.
For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.ico.org.uk. Alternatively, write to or
phone:
Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 0303 123 1113
LEGAL ANNEX

Section 1(1) of the Act provides:
(1)Any person making a request for information to a public authority is
entitled-
(a)to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds
information of the description specified in the request, and
(b)if that is the case, to have that information communicated to him.

Section 17(1) of the Act provides:
(1)A public authority which, in relation to any request for information,
is to any extent relying on a claim that any provision of Part II relating
to the duty to confirm or deny is relevant to the request or on a claim
that information is exempt information must, within the time for complying
with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice which-
(a)states that fact,
(b)specifies the exemption in question, and
(c)states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption
applies.

Section 40 Personal information.

(2)Any information to which a request for information relates is also
exempt information if-

(a)it constitutes personal data which do not fall within subsection (1),
and

(b)either the first or the second condition below is satisfied.

(3)The first condition is-

(a)in a case where the information falls within any of paragraphs (a) to
(d) of the definition of "data" in section 1(1) of the M1Data Protection
Act 1998, that the disclosure of the information to a member of the public
otherwise than under this Act would contravene-

(i)any of the data protection principles, or

(ii)section 10 of that Act (right to prevent processing likely to cause
damage or distress), and

(b)in any other case, that the disclosure of the information to a member
of the public otherwise than under this Act would contravene any of the
data protection principles if the exemptions in section 33A(1) of the
M2Data Protection Act 1998 (which relate to manual data held by public
authorities) were disregarded.

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system. To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law. Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents. The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to thank Ms Taylor for the documents sent and to request an internal review of Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)'s handling of my FOI request 'Met Detention Equality Impact Assessment'.

1) I am confused by the explanations for the use of an s40 exception in the Decision. Ms Taylor wrote for example 'I consider that the release of information related to terminated contracts, due to the low numbers returned, constitutes personal data.' However, I have not requested any information related to terminated contracts. I suspect this is the result of an erroneous copy/paste and that Ms Taylor is in fact claiming this exemption for the three redactions at the top of EIA v8 (the location of the EIA SOP, the author of the EIA and who signed it). If that's what Ms Taylor meant I am perfectly happy with that part of the decision. If not, please clarify what is meant by this part of the decision.

2) Section 2 of the v8 of the EIA includes the spreadsheet 'Inspection Master list.xls' which is described as the findings from 'The Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate (DCFD) have assessed the suitability of 21 suites to support disabled and Muslim detainees , and Transgender detainees/staff' . In the conversion process to TIF/PDF to ready these documents for FoIA publication, this spreadsheet was lost. As this spreadsheet is an integral part of the document, it should also be provided as part of the response to my request.

3) In the Disclosure section Ms Taylor wrote 'With respect to the second part of your request, reasonable searches have been made and as at today's date no information relevant to your request has been located.' I understand that statement as implying that searches are still being made and that a response will be provided to that part of my request. I would appreciate to know when I can expect such response. (Obviously feedback has been received and processed between the two versions of the EIA you sent me, and as the review date for v8 is 'constant', feedback has been received on that version as well, especially as it was signed off in 2014, even before Met Detention came into operation).

4) The two versions of the EIA provided are an undated '(draft) version 1' and a Version 8 created on 2014-06-11. In response to the first part of my request, can you please either provide versions 2 to 7 or confirm that the numbering jumped from 1 to 8 with no versions in-between and hence do not hold any such information.

I write in connection with your request for a review of the handling
and/or decision relating to 2016030000986 which was received by the
Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 28/04/2016.

A review will now be conducted in accordance with the Code of Practice
issued under Section 45 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).
The reviewing officer will reconsider the original request before
responding to you with their findings.

There is no statutory time limit in relation to the completion of an
Internal Review. However, the MPS aim to complete Internal Reviews within
20 working days or in exceptional cases, within 40 working days. This is
based upon guidance published by the Information Commissioner.

If it is not possible to complete the Internal Review within this
timescale you will be informed at the earliest opportunity.

If you are unhappy with the outcome of an Internal Review you may wish to
refer the matter to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO).

For information on how to make an application to the Information
Commissioner please visit their website at www.ico.org.uk. Alternatively,
write to or phone:

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system. To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law. Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents. The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

I write in connection with your complaint concerning original case number:
2016030000986.

The MPS aim to complete internal reviews within 20 working days or in
exceptional cases within 40 working days. This is based upon guidance
issued by the Information Commissioner in relation to reasonable
timescales for the internal review process. In this instance it has not
been possible to provide you with a response to your complaint within our
target timescale. Whilst I am unable to provide you with a date for a
response, I can reassure you that your case is still in progress. Please
accept my apologies for the delay.

If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your case you may contact the
Information Commissioner (www.ico.org.uk) for a decision on whether the
request for information has been dealt with in accordance with the
requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Alternatively, write
to or phone:

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system. To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law. Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents. The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

In connection with your correspondence concerning your request for
information to the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) under reference
2016030000986.
Please find below a response to your complaint.

Request:
a) The revisions of the Met Detention Equality Impact Assessment
(EIA) since Met Detention started operating
b) The feedback received following each review of these documents

REVIEW DECISION

You have made a number of comments in regards to the information you have
received – these are addressed below. The review varies the original
decision and can provide the additional information you are seeking,
subject to removal of some information by virtue of section 40(2)and(3) –
Personal Information, Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) – reasons
for which can be found at ANNEX A below.

The review takes note of the points you raise in your correspondence and
can advise that your request has been made and therefore considered under
the Freedom of Information Act. The review will now deal with each of your
points below:

In regards to your comment (1) I am confused by the explanations for the
use of an s40 exception in the Decision. Ms Taylor wrote for example 'I
consider that the release of information related to terminated contracts,
due to the low numbers returned, constitutes personal data.' However, I
have not requested any information related to terminated contracts. I
suspect this is the result of an erroneous copy/paste and that Ms Taylor
is in fact claiming this exemption for the three redactions at the top of
EIA v8 (the location of the EIA SOP, the author of the EIA and who signed
it). If that's what Ms Taylor meant I am perfectly happy with that part
of the decision. If not, please clarify what is meant by this part of the
decision.

The review can advise you that the review has examined the initial
handling of this case and has considered in detail the response sent to
you. The review is satisfied that the line you refer to was an
administrative error, and that the only redactions relate to staff names
in the documents with rank below Chief Inspector or police staff
equivalent.

In regards to your comment (2) Section 2 of the v8 of the EIA includes the
spreadsheet 'Inspection Master list.xls' which is described as the
findings from 'The Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate (DCFD) have
assessed the suitability of 21 suites to support disabled and Muslim
detainees, and Transgender detainees/staff'. In the conversion process to
TIF/PDF to ready these documents for FoIA publication, this spreadsheet
was lost. As this spreadsheet is an integral part of the document, it
should also be provided as part of the response to my request.

The relevant spreadsheet to which you refer, titled ‘Inspection Master
List’, has now been attached to this review decision, subject to the
removal of names of individuals below the rank of Chief Inspector or
Police Staff equivalent by virtue of section 40(2)and(3).

In regards to your comment (3) In the Disclosure section Ms Taylor wrote
'With respect to the second part of your request, reasonable searches have
been made and as at today's date no information relevant to your request
has been located.' I understand that statement as implying that searches
are still being made and that a response will be provided to that part of
my request. I would appreciate to know when I can expect such response.
(Obviously feedback has been received and processed between the two
versions of the EIA you sent me, and as the review date for v8 is
'constant', feedback has been received on that version as well, especially
as it was signed off in 2014, even before Met Detention came into
operation).

The Act allows requests to be made for information held by a public
authority at the time the request is made. There is no requirement to
create information or provide opinion in order to answer a request, unless
this is already recorded in documents or other form.

The Information Commissioner Office advises ‘In scenarios where there is
some dispute between the amount of information located by a public
authority and the amount of information that a complainant believes may be
held, the ICO, following the lead of a number of Information Tribunal
decisions, applies the civil standard of the balance of probabilities.’
The task of this review is therefore to decide whether on the balance of
probabilities the MPS holds any information which falls within the scope
of your request

To this end the review is satisfied that reasonable enquiries were carried
out in the original case with the most appropriate Unit (Met Detention)
for ‘The feedback received following each review of these documents’.
Following further enquiries only one relevant feedback email was located
and is attached to this review - subject to the exemption of personal
information by virtue of section 40(2)and(3).

The review is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that no further
information is held which falls within the scope of your request for
feedback following each Equality Impact Assessment.

In regards to your comment (4) The two versions of the EIA provided are an
undated '(draft) version 1' and a Version 8 created on 2014-06-11. In
response to the first part of my request, can you please either provide
versions 2 to 7 or confirm that the numbering jumped from 1 to 8 with no
versions in-between and hence do not hold any such information.

The review has made further enquiries with Met Detention and three further
draft versions have been located, which are attached to this review
decision. Additionally, a Briefing Note was attached to Version 4 and 5
and these have both been redacted in part to ensure no individual is
identified by virtue of s.40(2)and(3). No further versions were located.

If you are dissatisfied with this review, you have the right to appeal the
decision by contacting the Information Commissioner (www.ico.org.uk) for a
decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

For information on how to make an application to the Information
Commissioner please visit their website at www.ico.org.uk. Alternatively,
write to or phone:

As mentioned in the original MPS response, under Section 40(2)and(3) of
the Act, Public Authorities are able to withhold information where its
release would identify any living individual and breach the principles of
the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA).

The review has also applied this exemption in that the names and personal
information of any individuals identified in the requested information
constitutes personal data which would, if released, be in breach of the
rights provided by the DPA.

The eight principles of the DPA govern the way in which data controllers
must manage personal data. Under principle one of the DPA, personal data
must be processed fairly and lawfully. I consider that the release of the
names and personal information of individuals recorded within the
requested information constitutes personal data. The release of this
information would be unfair as the persons concerned would have no
reasonable expectation that the MPS would make this information publicly
available.

In reaching this decision the review has given due regard to Condition one
and six of Schedule 2 of the DPA. Condition one of the DPA requires that
consideration is given to whether consent for disclosure has been given
whilst Condition six requires that consideration is given to whether
disclosure would constitute legitimate processing of that data.

Having considered both conditions, the review has established that no
consent is present or would likely be received to release this
information. This exemption is both absolute and class based. When this
exemption is applied, it is accepted that harm would result from
disclosure. There is accordingly no requirement to consider whether
release of information is in the public interest or demonstrate what harm
would result from disclosure.

The review is therefore satisfied that section 40(2)and(3) is
appropriately engaged in this case.

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system. To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law. Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents. The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Thank you for your review and your decision to vary the original decision. I appreciate the attached additional relevant documents that you found the MPS was holding. I am however both disappointed and concerned that, even after further enquiries, you managed to locate only one relevant feedback email as this demonstrates some serious issues with the consultation process for this EIA. I am also surprised that the three included Inspection Master Lists are the same barring some slight variations in presentation/redactions; could this be a mistake?

In regards to your comment: "I am however both disappointed and concerned that, even after further enquiries, you managed to locate only one relevant feedback email as this demonstrates some serious issues with the consultation process for this EIA" the review has already advised "The review is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that no further information is held which falls within the scope of your request for feedback following each Equality Impact Assessment."

In regards to your comment: "I am also surprised that the three included Inspection Master Lists are the same barring some slight variations in presentation/redactions; could this be a mistake?". I can advise that the 3 Inspection Master Lists are the documents attached to the documents you have requested.

Should you remain dissatisfied with this review, you now have the right to appeal the decision by contacting the Information Commissioner's office at the details already provided.